ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Prospective Evaluation of Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes following Video-Assisted Rhino-Septoplasty.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConservative techniques have been developed in the field of rhinoplasty, focusing on limited tissue resection while emphasizing the reshaping of nasal structural elements.
objectivesWe aimed to prospectively evaluate aesthetic and functional outcomes following Video-Assisted Rhino-Septoplasty (VARS) using validated tools.
methodsPatients' self-reported outcomes were assessed before and 6 months after surgery. Aesthetic evaluations used FACE-Q Rhinoplasty modules (FQRM) Satisfaction with Nose and Nostrils. Functional evaluations were performed with NOSE scores. T-tests were used to determine the significance of the change in scores before and after surgery. p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsFifty patients were included (sex ratio = 0.16, mean age = 30 y.o., 78% primary cases). All patients had associated septoplasties, and 32 had inferior turbinate reductions. Mean FQRM Nose scores were 28.1 ± 16.3 before vs. 83.4 ± 17.2/100 after surgery. Mean FQRM Nostrils scores were 61.5 ± 28.6 before vs. 85 ± 21/100 after surgery. Mean NOSE scores were 49.5 ± 36.3 before vs. 14.8 ± 16.6/100 after surgery. All p <0.001. We found no correlation between FQRM Nose and NOSE scores after surgery (ρ = -0.1553, IC95% (-0.41;0.12), p = 0.28).
conclusionOur study showed that VARS is an effective technique, yielding high patient satisfaction in both aesthetic and functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38819447What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.